It is natural to believe what we see. But what if what we see is only part of the truth? What happens when we cannot step outside our own perspective, when we make no effort to understand what other people see? Perhaps the real question is not so much what we see, but how firmly we believe that what we see is the whole of reality.
José Saramago's Blindness follows these questions into unsettling territory. One day, a man waiting at a red light while driving suddenly loses his sight. Yet his blindness is unlike the darkness we might expect; everything disappears into a sea of white light. Soon, others begin to experience the same condition. An unexplained epidemic spreads, and the foundations of social life begin to crumble.
Saramago does not explain the cause of the epidemic. He offers no scientific account of the disease, nor does he confine the story to the familiar boundaries of a disaster novel. What interests him is how people behave when the rules of the world they know begin to disappear.
Sometimes, we do not need something new to emerge to see a society for what it is. It is enough for the order we have grown accustomed to fall apart.
As the novel progresses, the lives of those who have lost their sight become increasingly difficult. Confined together, they struggle to meet their most basic needs. Fear, distrust, and the struggle for power become more pronounced. Rules that once seemed to hold society together begin to lose their meaning when the conditions for enforcing them disappear.
Here, Saramago raises an important question: Are people held together by their moral principles, or by the existence of rules and the fear of punishment?
In everyday life, countless visible and invisible rules shape our behaviour. Respecting other people's rights, protecting the vulnerable, sharing public spaces we follow many of these principles without questioning them. But when circumstances change, when supervision disappears, or when our personal interests are threatened, can we still uphold the same principles?
Blindness offers no easy answer. Saramago shows people helping one another, but he also shows them exploiting the helplessness of others. In doing so, he reveals how inadequate it is to explain human nature in terms of good and evil alone. Our behaviour is not independent of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, yet claiming that circumstances determine everything would not absolve us of responsibility.
One of the novel's most thought-provoking features is the way blindness ceases to be an individual loss and becomes a social crisis. Unable to see, people struggle to navigate their surroundings, trust one another, and live together. But the real problem is not simply that their eyes have stopped functioning. Their ability to recognise one another as human beings is also put to the test.
We often confuse our understanding of the world with the world itself. We may mistake our interpretation of an event for the event's entire truth. We assume that what seems right to us must be right for everyone. When another person interprets the same event differently, we may be quicker to conclude that they are wrong than to try to understand their experience.
Yet a point of view is not the same as reality. Seeing something from a particular position does not mean we have seen the whole of it.
It is not easy to recognise the limits of our own thinking. We become attached not only to what we know, but also to what we believe we know. Our ideas gradually become part of our identity. Questioning them can feel like questioning ourselves. So instead of examining our beliefs, we begin to defend them.
Before long, we may no longer be trying to understand the truth. We may simply be trying to protect our own version of it.
In Saramago's novel, the doctor's wife is the only person who does not lose her sight during the epidemic. This detail creates one of the story's central tensions. Being able to see a world that others cannot see does not simply give her an advantage; it also places the responsibility of witnessing what happens upon her.
Witnessing the suffering of others is not always easy. Sometimes we want to intervene but do not know how. Sometimes what we see disturbs us, and we choose to look away. At other times, we try not to think about what others are experiencing because we want to carry on with our own lives.
But seeing and understanding are not the same thing. Witnessing an injustice is not the same as understanding its causes. Recognising someone's suffering is not the same as grasping the circumstances in which that suffering takes place.
Another form of blindness emerges here: we can remain closed to other people's experiences even when our eyes are open. When we judge others through our own ideas, habits, and expectations, we may never give ourselves the chance to understand their world.
The question, then, is not merely whether we see what others are going through. It is also what we allow that sight to change within us.
While Blindness reveals how fragile social order can be, it also highlights the importance of solidarity. Our need for one another is not something that appears only in times of crisis. Society itself depends on our willingness to acknowledge the presence of others.
Living together does not mean thinking alike. On the contrary, it requires people with different experiences and beliefs to find a way to share a common world. This demands more than rules. It also requires us to recognise one another's boundaries, respect each other's rights, and reconsider our own judgments when necessary.
When we turn our perspective into an absolute truth, listening to others begins to seem unnecessary. Someone who thinks differently is no longer a person seeing the world from another position; they become someone who is wrong, who fails to understand, or whom we must oppose.
At that point, disagreement ceases to be an opportunity to think together and becomes a struggle for power.
It is easy to imagine that the world Saramago describes has little to do with our own. After all, the novel features an extraordinary epidemic, and its characters live under unusual conditions. Yet the questions it raises are not limited to exceptional circumstances. How much attention we pay to the needs of others, how we use power, and how willing we are to question our own convictions are also part of everyday life.
José Saramago's Blindness reminds us that we do not see with our eyes alone. We also try to understand the world through our thoughts, experiences, fears, and relationships with others. Losing one's sight and being unable to step outside one's own thinking are not the same thing, but both can lead us to question how we relate to the world.
Recognising the limits of our perspective does not mean claiming that every idea is equally true. We can investigate facts, question claims, and challenge ideas we believe to be wrong. What matters is that we do not exempt our own judgments from scrutiny.
Perhaps this is one of the most important conditions of thinking: remaining open to learning while defending what we believe we know.
Because sometimes we are mistaken not because we see something incorrectly, but because we never consider that there might be something beyond what we see.
And perhaps the most difficult question is this: Are we looking in order to discover the truth, or merely to see what we already believe to be true?
The Previous Articles
https://www.arkhedijital.com/2026/09/books-and-life-1-chronicle-of-death.html
https://www.arkhedijital.com/2026/10/books-and-life-2-dispossessed-ursula-k.html
https://www.arkhedijital.com/2026/10/books-and-life-3-jean-paul-sartre.html
https://www.arkhedijital.com/2026/10/books-and-life-4-hermann-hesse.html
https://www.arkhedijital.com/2026/10/books-and-life-5-human-lost-within.html
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder